The problem I see with the Quantum No communication theorem is that it accept that there is an interaction than could 'travel' FTL but since no information can be transfered that way, then causality is not affected.
I don't know but I really see that reasoning looking like if there was an astral agent that would be looking at our world and accept that some 'things' (whatever affecting the state of the entangled photon) can go FTL but, OMG if some of it would be actual information that could lead to human (or anything else) violating causality then and only then it is not permitted. Sorry but that seem pretty absurd to me. And, isn't the entangled particle state changing information in a way, even if WE cannot know. Please explain this to me.
This is why I put up my theory than the information, who would NOT be travelling (physically) FTL, hence NOT affected by relativity and then NOT going backward in time seem more 'logical' to me (I didn't say plausible since this is just a random idea that popped in my head but well, going backward in time just seem crazy). You can check my more recent post somewhere in this thread, where I tryed to explain in a better way what I meant.
Ok first, sorry for the (somewhat) redundant posts but I'll try to make this one more accurate than the last ones (one of which I was somewhat drunk).
I read the article about the FTL communication paradox that you linked to, and well, I think he might be missing a really simpler logical explanation (altough some scientist probably though it aldready and have a better way to say it than me, I'm too lazy to google something).
My logical explanation on this would be, maybe information about quantum states do NOT need to obey to the laws of relativity. Like, relativity is a law that apply to physical particules (and waves or whatever), but maybe that it do NOT apply to quantum state 'information'. Since that 'information' in whatever way it would actually happen to travel, do not physically travel, it would NOT really go FTL and hence NOT backward in time.
This could explain Quantum theory's FTL information travel while not entering in weird "backward in time" paradoxes (like multiple world split or anything) and seem to make more sense that saying "Quantum theory tells us that information can happen FTL but, since we cannot use this to communicate or send any real information FTL, then going backward in time is impossible" (Which is how somewhat I understood the argument of a lot of other posters).
It's like saying (If I interpret this correctly) travelling backward in time is possible but only for quantum state but not for anything else so time travel is impossible (is it possible or not? I don't know but this duality seem weirder to me than Schrodinger's cat).
Well I don't know but going backward in time, even if only for quantum state seem really weird to me. I'm not saying I'm correct or something and like I aldready said in another post, have no ideas how it (non-physical instant travel of the quantum state) would be possible (I don't know, maybe another dimension or something?), but well, I find it really seem more logical than going back in time (which, although possible, seem really weird to me)
.. or 4. You cannot 'exceed' speed of light but can communicate 'instantanly' with a particule far away, because, in fact, it is not travelling at all.
Look just imagine the world as a computer modeling a world with physic law (our world simulated in a computer). Now there is a law called 'relativity' (simulated) that limit the movement of physical object; but, the 'computer' could know instantaly that a particule changed stated and adjust the other one without needing to 'tavel' the information at the speed of light.
No causality or law would be violated.. there just a problem because it is a 'computer' in the example. Sooo... maybe it is your multi-world explanation you were talking about.. I didn't really understand what you meant, sorry... or something else, but, just saying that, logically (sort of) you don't need to exceed speed of light to transmit information faster than speed of light (in the example, speed would be limited by the speed of execution of the computer running the simulation)... just that the explanation for it to be possible is not logical (in our current knowledges)
Ok first, I am not a physicist (or anything close to one) and I do not claim to understand quantum theory (or even fully understand relativity) but from my logical deduction from what I heard on the subject your analysis is flawed.
The problem is that the 'information' that the electron is entangled (even if we assume you could know it, which is supposed impossible after reading some of the replies) do not travel faster than the speed of light. In fact it do not travel at all; it just 'happens', so in fact do not follow the theory of relativity. I don't know if you get my reasoning and I don't say I'm correct but this just seem a logical explaination of why 'information' (state actually since other slashdotter will kill me for saying information) could 'travel' faster than the speed of light without the "going back in time" paradox (like I said, because it is not really 'travelling' at all).
Now how and why this could be possible is not something I pretend to even have ideas about but well, I just found that the "going back in time" paradox didn't make sense at all and this explanation seem quite logical (in a sense).
Hmm hmm... interesting... maybe I should give Firefox a try again. In fact, I said firefox was unusable, but that was only the experience with a base default install (don't remember wich version, sorry, pretty sure it 1.something though), and I'm not running a base default opera install (tweaked a lot of the settings) so I agree that's a little biased. I've noticed, at my PC at work, that a base install of opera seem to be kinda sluggish (like more than when I'm at home) when used on a Dual Pentium 4, 2.8 Mhz (512Mb RAM) so well, I agree that if I tweaked firefox too it might give different result.
I'll try and see if I can get it to run as smooth as the opera install I'm running right now. Thank you for making me notice that fact.
Well, I am writing this using Opera 9.22 on a Pentium II 233 Mhz with 160Mb RAM, so browsing the web isn't that much resource intensive (don't ask why I still have such an old computer (monetary question mostly)). I tried firefox (and IE7) and it is not really usable on a computer that old. Now, I don't think there is really a market for computer that old, so I'm not saying firefox should should make a lite version for me but, just to say that not all browser need really much resource to run. I do get lag in scrolling in some (heavy) web page, but I think the bottleneck is my video card and not the CPU/RAM, but I'm not really an expert in this domain.
... and you also forgot the part where the AI as to detect new pattern emerging in the slashdot community, and add those to the current model as they get popular.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem I see with the Quantum No communication theorem is that it accept that there is an interaction than could 'travel' FTL but since no information can be transfered that way, then causality is not affected.
I don't know but I really see that reasoning looking like if there was an astral agent that would be looking at our world and accept that some 'things' (whatever affecting the state of the entangled photon) can go FTL but, OMG if some of it would be actual information that could lead to human (or anything else) violating causality then and only then it is not permitted. Sorry but that seem pretty absurd to me. And, isn't the entangled particle state changing information in a way, even if WE cannot know. Please explain this to me.
This is why I put up my theory than the information, who would NOT be travelling (physically) FTL, hence NOT affected by relativity and then NOT going backward in time seem more 'logical' to me (I didn't say plausible since this is just a random idea that popped in my head but well, going backward in time just seem crazy). You can check my more recent post somewhere in this thread, where I tryed to explain in a better way what I meant.
Ok first, sorry for the (somewhat) redundant posts but I'll try to make this one more accurate than the last ones (one of which I was somewhat drunk).
I read the article about the FTL communication paradox that you linked to, and well, I think he might be missing a really simpler logical explanation (altough some scientist probably though it aldready and have a better way to say it than me, I'm too lazy to google something).
My logical explanation on this would be, maybe information about quantum states do NOT need to obey to the laws of relativity. Like, relativity is a law that apply to physical particules (and waves or whatever), but maybe that it do NOT apply to quantum state 'information'. Since that 'information' in whatever way it would actually happen to travel, do not physically travel, it would NOT really go FTL and hence NOT backward in time.
This could explain Quantum theory's FTL information travel while not entering in weird "backward in time" paradoxes (like multiple world split or anything) and seem to make more sense that saying "Quantum theory tells us that information can happen FTL but, since we cannot use this to communicate or send any real information FTL, then going backward in time is impossible" (Which is how somewhat I understood the argument of a lot of other posters).
It's like saying (If I interpret this correctly) travelling backward in time is possible but only for quantum state but not for anything else so time travel is impossible (is it possible or not? I don't know but this duality seem weirder to me than Schrodinger's cat).
Well I don't know but going backward in time, even if only for quantum state seem really weird to me. I'm not saying I'm correct or something and like I aldready said in another post, have no ideas how it (non-physical instant travel of the quantum state) would be possible (I don't know, maybe another dimension or something?), but well, I find it really seem more logical than going back in time (which, although possible, seem really weird to me)
.. or 4. You cannot 'exceed' speed of light but can communicate 'instantanly' with a particule far away, because, in fact, it is not travelling at all.
.. there just a problem because it is a 'computer' in the example. Sooo ... maybe it is your multi-world explanation you were talking about .. I didn't really understand what you meant, sorry ... or something else, but, just saying that, logically (sort of) you don't need to exceed speed of light to transmit information faster than speed of light (in the example, speed would be limited by the speed of execution of the computer running the simulation) ... just that the explanation for it to be possible is not logical (in our current knowledges)
Look just imagine the world as a computer modeling a world with physic law (our world simulated in a computer). Now there is a law called 'relativity' (simulated) that limit the movement of physical object; but, the 'computer' could know instantaly that a particule changed stated and adjust the other one without needing to 'tavel' the information at the speed of light.
No causality or law would be violated
Ok first, I am not a physicist (or anything close to one) and I do not claim to understand quantum theory (or even fully understand relativity) but from my logical deduction from what I heard on the subject your analysis is flawed.
The problem is that the 'information' that the electron is entangled (even if we assume you could know it, which is supposed impossible after reading some of the replies) do not travel faster than the speed of light. In fact it do not travel at all; it just 'happens', so in fact do not follow the theory of relativity. I don't know if you get my reasoning and I don't say I'm correct but this just seem a logical explaination of why 'information' (state actually since other slashdotter will kill me for saying information) could 'travel' faster than the speed of light without the "going back in time" paradox (like I said, because it is not really 'travelling' at all).
Now how and why this could be possible is not something I pretend to even have ideas about but well, I just found that the "going back in time" paradox didn't make sense at all and this explanation seem quite logical (in a sense).
Hmm hmm ... interesting ... maybe I should give Firefox a try again. In fact, I said firefox was unusable, but that was only the experience with a base default install (don't remember wich version, sorry, pretty sure it 1.something though), and I'm not running a base default opera install (tweaked a lot of the settings) so I agree that's a little biased. I've noticed, at my PC at work, that a base install of opera seem to be kinda sluggish (like more than when I'm at home) when used on a Dual Pentium 4, 2.8 Mhz (512Mb RAM) so well, I agree that if I tweaked firefox too it might give different result.
I'll try and see if I can get it to run as smooth as the opera install I'm running right now. Thank you for making me notice that fact.
Well, I am writing this using Opera 9.22 on a Pentium II 233 Mhz with 160Mb RAM, so browsing the web isn't that much resource intensive (don't ask why I still have such an old computer (monetary question mostly)). I tried firefox (and IE7) and it is not really usable on a computer that old. Now, I don't think there is really a market for computer that old, so I'm not saying firefox should should make a lite version for me but, just to say that not all browser need really much resource to run. I do get lag in scrolling in some (heavy) web page, but I think the bottleneck is my video card and not the CPU/RAM, but I'm not really an expert in this domain.
... and you also forgot the part where the AI as to detect new pattern emerging in the slashdot community, and add those to the current model as they get popular.